Case: 19-2183 Document: 31 Page: 1 Filed: 04/08/2020

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit
______________________

TINA M. NOFFKE,
Petitioner

v.

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE,
Respondent
______________________

2019-2183
______________________

Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection

Board in No. CH-0752-18-0540-I-1.
______________________

Decided: April 8, 2020

______________________

DARRIN WAYNE GIBBONS, Gibbons Law Firm PLC,

Richmond, VA, for petitioner.

DOMENIQUE GRACE KIRCHNER, Commercial Litigation

Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
tice, Washington, DC, for respondent. Also represented by
JOSEPH H. HUNT, REGINALD THOMAS BLADES, JR., ROBERT
EDWARD KIRSCHMAN, JR.
______________________

Before DYK, SCHALL, and O’MALLEY, Circuit Judges.

Case: 19-2183 Document: 31 Page: 2 Filed: 04/08/2020

2 NOFFKE v. DEFENSE

DYK, Circuit Judge.

Tina M. Noffke seeks review of a decision from the
Merit Systems Protection Board (“Board”). The Board af-
firmed the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency’s
(“NGA”) decision to remove Ms. Noffke from her position at
the NGA for absence without leave (“AWOL”), falsification,
and conduct unbecoming a federal employee. We affirm.
BACKGROUND
Ms. Noffke was first employed by the agency in 1991.
In her most recent position, she worked as a Budget Ana-
lyst in the NGA’s St. Louis office. Ms. Noffke worked on a
flexible schedule, as she often required time off to attend to
personal matters.
All NGA employees are required to report their work
hours through an electronic system. Each employee, prior
to submitting time sheets, is provided with a notice that
“[k]nowingly submitting an inaccurate time sheet is con-
sidered time reporting fraud and is subject to disciplinary
action, including removal.” J.A. 397. In addition, employ-
ees are required to swipe an access card and enter an ac-
cess code to enter or exit NGA facilities. Each employee’s
entry and exit times are recorded by the NGA’s Access Con-
trol Records (“ACRs”). The NGA’s Office of Inspector Gen-
eral (“OIG”) investigates discrepancies between an
employee’s logged work hours and the ACRs.
On February 13, 2018, the OIG interviewed Ms. Noffke
and informed her that she was being investigated for a dis-
crepancy between her reported work hours and her ACRs.
At the interview, Ms. Noffke was provided with copies of
OIG time and attendance analysis spreadsheets, which
showed the discrepancies between her reported work hours
and ACRs.
On May 3, 2018, the agency notified Ms. Noffke that it
proposed to remove her from her position. The OIG at-
tached a report (“the OIG report”) to the notice, which
Case: 19-2183 Document: 31 Page: 3 Filed: 04/08/2020

NOFFKE v. DEFENSE 3

included the time and attendance analysis spreadsheets

and a written Douglas factor analysis. See Douglas v. Vet-
erans Admin., 5 M.S.P.R. 280, 296–97 (1981) (setting forth
the factors relevant in determining the appropriateness of
a penalty). The notice included a detailed accounting of the
hours that Ms. Noffke was AWOL (48 hours), the hours
that Ms. Noffke was charged with falsifying (145.50 hours),
and the hours as to which Ms. Noffke was charged with
conduct unbecoming a federal employee (234.07 hours). 1
The notice provided Ms. Noffke with an opportunity to re-
spond orally and in writing and placed her on paid admin-
istrative leave until the NGA reached its decision. On June
7, 2018, Ms. Noffke made an oral response to the agency’s
proposal.
On July 17, 2018, the agency issued a decision sustain-
ing the charges. Ms. Noffke appealed to the Board. The
administrative judge found that the agency had shown all
of its charges by a preponderance of the evidence, and that
the agency had satisfied due process by providing Ms.
Noffke with notice, an opportunity to respond, and the evi-
dence that the agency relied on in making its decision. Be-
cause Ms. Noffke did not seek review by the full Board, the
decision of the administrative judge became the decision of
the Board. Ms. Noffke filed this timely appeal, and we have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C § 1295(a)(9).

1 The agency considers an employee to be AWOL if

absent from the workplace for five or more hours without
leave. A falsification is any instance where the employee
falsely reported more than 20 work hours in a pay period
in excess of his or her hours worked. A specification for
conduct unbecoming a federal employee includes any in-
stance where the employee falsely reported excess hours
that were less than 20 hours in a pay period.
Case: 19-2183 Document: 31 Page: 4 Filed: 04/08/2020

4 NOFFKE v. DEFENSE

DISCUSSION
Our review of Board decisions is limited by statute. We
may only set aside Board decisions that are: “(1) arbitrary,
capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in ac-
cordance with law; (2) obtained without procedures re-
quired by law, rule, or regulation having been followed; or
(3) unsupported by substantial evidence.” 5 U.S.C.
§ 7703(c).
I
Ms. Noffke challenges the agency’s charges for (1) fal-
sification and (2) conduct unbecoming a federal employee.
She argues that they lack the specificity required by due
process because neither of the two charges alleges a specific
date of misconduct. The charging document, however,
specified the pay periods and number of hours for each of
these charges, and the attached spreadsheets provided a
detailed accounting of the exact dates and times that
formed the basis of the agency’s charges. We see no error
in the Board’s decision rejecting that argument. See Pope
v. United States Postal Serv., 114 F.3d 1144, 1148–49 (Fed.
Cir. 1997) (rejecting appellant’s argument that “his due
process rights were violated because the charges lacked
specificity regarding dates, times, and places” because
“[t]he notice given to [the appellant was] quite detailed and
clearly informed him of the charges as well as the evidence
the [agency] had in support”).
II
Ms. Noffke argues that the Board’s decision was not
supported by substantial evidence. Ms. Noffke asserts that
the Board could not rely on the OIG report because it was
not an original record and instead referred to other evi-
dence gathered by the OIG.
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) allows the
agency to receive “any oral or documentary evidence,” and
only requires the agency to exclude “irrelevant,
Case: 19-2183 Document: 31 Page: 5 Filed: 04/08/2020

NOFFKE v. DEFENSE 5

immaterial, or unduly repetitious evidence.” 5 U.S.C.

§ 556. “[I]t has long been settled that [hearsay] may be
used in administrative proceedings and may be treated as
substantial evidence, even without corroboration, if, to a
reasonable mind, the circumstances are such as to lend it
credence.” Hayes v. Dep’t of Navy, 727 F.2d 1535, 1538 &
n.2 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (collecting cases).
The OIG report, which had been supplied to Ms.
Noffke, set forth ample evidence to sustain all three of the
agency’s charges. And the Board had discretion to admit
the OIG report as evidence. See Kewley v. HHS, 153 F.3d
1357, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 1998). We conclude that the Board
properly relied on the OIG report and that substantial evi-
dence supported the Board’s decision. 2
III
Ms. Noffke asserts that she was entitled to receive the
evidence underlying the OIG report, “including, but not
limited to attendance records, emails, witness statements,
and computer record audits, and tape recordings of state-
ments.” Appellant’s Br. 7. She argues that the failure to
supply these documents when the agency was considering
the charges was a violation of due process.
After her initial interview with OIG, Ms. Noffke made
a request for these documents. The agency denied that re-
quest. Ms. Noffke was, however, provided with detailed
spreadsheets at her interview, and the record shows that
she left her interview with copies of the OIG time and at-
tendance analysis spreadsheets. We conclude that the
agency provided Ms. Noffke with sufficient notice,

2 There is no merit to Ms. Noffke’s argument that the

deciding official needed to rely on the evidence underlying
the OIG report in the pre-termination proceedings. There
is no bar to the deciding official’s relying on summary doc-
uments.
Case: 19-2183 Document: 31 Page: 6 Filed: 04/08/2020

6 NOFFKE v. DEFENSE

including “an explanation of [its] evidence” to satisfy her

due process rights and the NGA’s regulations. See Cleve-
land Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 546 (1985);
5 C.F.R § 752.404(b)(1); see generally NGA Manual for Dis-
ciplinary and Adverse Actions, Number 1455.1 (Feb. 19,
2015). We note that Ms. Noffke never sought discovery of
those materials in the Board proceedings.
AFFIRMED